XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.california   
   From: fred@fredwilliams.FFFfca   
      
   Dutch wrote:   
      
   >   
   > "K"  wrote in message   
   > news:p6WdnQbjsc3qvNTXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...   
   >> Dutch wrote:   
   >>> K wrote:   
   >>>> John Mayson wrote:   
   >>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either.  Meat   
   >>>>>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Protein that you just piss down the drain.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> False.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So?  If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim   
   >>>> you're being "more ethical" for it.  You aren't.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.   
   >>>   
   >>> Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from animal sources.   
   >>   
   >> Good point.  However, I wasn't specifically interested in nutrients that   
   >> are unique to meat.  Mayson seemed to be suggesting that there aren't any   
   >> important nutrients found in meat.  Nor was I claiming that meat is   
   >> necessarily the best source for these nutrients; my claim is limited to   
   >> the fact that meat /is/ a source for some important nutrients.   
   >>   
   >> What I find distressing about this part of the thread is my certainty   
   >> that, in the end, he's suddenly going to abandon the nutrition argument   
   >> entirely, and fall back onto some variant of "meat is murder".  It bugs   
   >> me when people use a smokescreen argument that they only intend to   
   >> abandon later on anyway.   
   >   
   > It just demonstrates a fundamental insincerity. Proponents of veganism use   
   > these utilitarian arguments like animal suffering, health, or the   
   > environment until those arguments get shot down,   
      
   	It's never happened yet.   
      
   > then they switch to a   
   > deontological perspective, asserting that humans have no_right to use   
   > animals for their own purposes, regardless of the benefits. Sometimes the   
   > shifting goes in the other direction.   
      
   	It's the same argument in different words.   
      
   --   
   Peace,   
   Fred   
   remove FFFf from my email address to reply.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)